R SUBHASHINI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 26. 10. 2007, the learned assistant Government Pleader for Civil supplies had taken notice and requested time to get instructions. The learned assistant Government Pleader for Civil supplies had placed the instructions before this Court and submitted that the Revenue divisional Officer, Ananthapur, had issued notices on 12. 8. 2005, 3. 9. 2005 for hearing the case on 3. 9. 2005 and 19. 9. 2005. After considering the explanation of the dealer and also after giving an opportunity of personal hearing on 3. 9. 2005 and finally on 17. 10. 2005, the Revenue Divisional Officer, ananthapur, has cancelled her dealership vide D. Dis. No. DICS/1018/2005, dated 22. 10. 2005.

(2.) THE main grievance of the writ petitioner is that the order of cancellation made is not preceded by a show-cause notice calling upon the writ petitioner to explain why the cancellation should not be effected. The learned Counsel would contend that the show-cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to explain why her authorization not to be suspended and in the light of the same, the impugned proceeding is bad in law. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in M Vijya lakshmi v. Joint Collector, Anantapur, ananthapur District and others, 2005 (2)ALD (NOC 134 ).

(3.) THE writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the order dated 5. 10. 2007 in Rc. No. K4/atp/l64/06 on the file of the first respondent, order dated 8. 2. 2006 in D. Dis. No. K4/atp/l 146/05 on the file of the 2nd respondent and the order dated 22. 10. 2005 in D. Dis. Dl/cs/1018/2005 on the file of the 3rd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and pass such other orders.